Wright v. Kansas City Terminal Railway Co.
| Decision Date | 05 March 1917 |
| Citation | 193 S.W. 963,195 Mo.App. 480 |
| Parties | LILLIAN M. WRIGHT, Respondent, v. KANSAS CITY TERMINAL RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court.--Hon. O. A. Lucas, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Judgment affirmed.
Lathrop Morrow, Fox & Moore for appellant.
McCune Harding, Brown & Murphy for respondent.
Plaintiff below recovered eleven hundred and fifty ($ 1150) dollars as damages for personal injuries received by her on October 2, 1912, in the old Union Station in Kansas City, Missouri.
The first point made by appellant is that the court erred in failing to sustain a demurrer to the evidence.
The evidence shows that at the time in question the defendant maintained rows of seats in its station, placed back to back, and that the tops of said seats were fastened together by means of horizontal boards thirteen (13) inches in width, having a moulding on either side an inch in height, leaving a space between the moulding of twelve inches. This space is referred to in the briefs as a ledge or rack. The evidence further shows that this ledge or rack, if not originally constructed for the purpose of the temporary storage of luggage by travelers, had been used by travelers for such purpose for at least eight (8) years, but whether it was originally constructed for this purpose or not, from the great number of years that defendant permitted the traveling public to use it for that purpose, it cannot be said that defendant did otherwise than maintain this ledge or rack for the purpose of temporary storage of luggage thereon by the traveling public. The evidence further shows that the station was very crowded, and that this ledge or rack was used for no other purpose except for the temporary storage of luggage, and that passengers were permitted to put their luggage upon said ledge or rack instead of upon the floor, if they desired to do so; that this ledge or rack was the only place provided for passengers to place luggage, except the floor. The testimony further shows that the molding so around the ledge or rack was intended to keep luggage from falling off of the same. The evidence further shows that this ledge or rack came up to the ears of adult persons sitting on the benches.
At the trial, by a cross-examination of one of its employees, the defendant brought out the fact that suit cases are of different sizes, and that the usual and customary size of one is twenty-four (24) inches in length, twelve (12) inches in width and six (6) inches in thickness.
At the time of the accident defendant maintained in said station a temporary hospital, or rest room, which was constructed by enclosing a part of the waiting room with heavy damask curtains hanging from wires; that on one side of said hospital room the damask curtains dropped from a wire down to, or nearly down to, the top of these rows of seats, so that one row of the seats that were placed back to back was in the hospital room and the other row in the general waiting room, and luggage placed on the ledge or rack between the seats would not ordinarily be seen by a person inside of the hospital room.
The evidence further shows that on the day in question plaintiff went to defendant's station to meet a friend, a Mrs. McFarland, who was on her way through Kansas City; that said friend was ill at the time and was taken into the hospital room, and that while plaintiff was seated on the row of seats in the hospital room administering to her said sick friend, a heavy brass bound suit case fell with great force, striking her on the arm and injuring her. That plaintiff did not know anything of the presence of the suit case until it struck her.
Witness, Mary A. Hunter, had also gone to the station to meet Mrs. McFarland, and was also inside of the hospital room with the sick lady. She stated that the suit case which struck plaintiff came from the top ledge between the seats. She stated that the first thing that attracted her attention was when the curtain moved out and then the grip stuck out and fell; but that she did not see it when it started to fall. From this, and other evidence of like character, we feel that the jury was justified in finding that the suit case fell from the ledge.
Plaintiff recovered on the theory that defendant had maintained a defective ledge or rack for the reception of luggage and that the suit case which fell and injured plaintiff was caused to fall either by the negligence of someone pushing it, or through the inadvertence of someone, or the jostling and pushing of the crowd in the station. Appellant maintains that, first, the maintenance of said ledge or rack was not negligent, and that if it was negligence, there is no evidence to show that such negligence caused the suit case to fall upon the plaintiff. It is conceded that the duty owed plaintiff by the defendant was that of ordinary care. By maintaining this ledge or rack, as above described, for the purpose of the temporary storage of luggage, we believe that defendant was guilty of negligence. The defendant had knowledge of the fact that its waiting room was very crowded and that persons were constantly sitting down upon and getting up from the seats, and that for a great many years the traveling public had stored luggage temporarily upon this ledge or rack on the back of the seats. Defendant knew that such luggage might consist of most anything that a person could carry by hand, and that it might be something tall or short, large or small, heavy or light. The testimony shows that this ledge or rack came up to the ears of persons seated on the seat, and that an ordinary suit case upon this ledge might extend upward six inches if lying down, twelve inches if standing up and twenty-four inches if standing on end, thus bringing the top of such a suit case, it matters not how it might be placed, above the heads of parties seated on the benches.
We think the defendant should have anticipated that many persons, either intentionally or thoughtlessly, would come in contact with luggage placed upon this ledge or rack and that such contact might be of sufficient force to cause such luggage to fall off of the same, nor do we believe that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial